This is a preliminary readout of IRG learnings, drawn from 150 C-suite business contributors, more than 85 stakeholder expert contributors and a literature review. It is organized in three parts: definition and challenges, success factors and key interventions, and the case for systemic change.
Key findings
- Business leaders broadly agree on the definition, while experts use different language for the same thing. The general direction is clear either way, and leaders treat the shift as inevitable rather than optional.
- It is not seen as a distraction, but it is difficult at times, and the difficulty shows up as short-term sub-optimalization.
- Measurement is the weak point. The readout calls the right metrics the Achilles’ heel, and separates measuring to update stakeholders from measuring to create value for the company.
- The vocabulary itself has become a liability. Contributors report that the term purpose is poisoned, and that the term growth is also under fire.
- There is no single multistakeholder initiative to point to. What the research finds instead is a collection of interventions for stakeholder impact.
What makes the work hard
Three structural obstacles recur. The stakeholder ecosystem keeps evolving, long-term prediction is hard in what the readout calls the Leap Age, and there is a lack of benchmarks and leading examples to steer by.
Objections are also recorded in the words leaders use. That it is not illegal. That it is not our role. That we will get attacked in the press. Against those sits stakeholder theory as the moral thing to do.
The interventions that recur
The first cluster is about seeing the whole picture: understanding full business impact, materiality, and redefining value creation. The example given is Volvo redefining safety.
The second is about strategy and time horizon: a long-term growth strategy, cascading the vision to each stakeholder, twin track thinking, and accepting the short-term investments that go with it. AB InBev’s Contract for Change is offered as an intervention that runs across the chain.
The third is technology, including AI, with the IBM Environmental Intelligence Suite cited as an example. The fourth is a collaborative mindset: next-generation boards, teaming up with start-ups, working with the public sector, collaborating with peers, and stakeholder value education.
The case for systemic change
The closing argument is that a statement is not enough. What is needed is fundamental, broad, deep, multi-scalar change, starting from recognizing firms as part of a complex system.
That means activating change actors, empowering down through the organization, and rewriting the stories the company tells. The readout calls this the rigor of systemic change.
Inside the organization it has to reach every part. No separate department and no separate reporting line, C-suite incentives aligned to it, and metrics redefined.
Scope and limitations
These are preliminary learnings, presented as such. The contributor base is 150 C-suite business contributors and more than 85 stakeholder experts alongside a literature review, and the document reports themes rather than measured results.
Source
This page summarises Preliminary IRG Learnings, by Institute for Real Growth, 2023-05-02.